Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied , page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 01:05 PM by ImAPepper

reply to post by ImAPepper

Here is the complete motion document:

legaltainment.googlepages.com...

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 03:09 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale

Interesting since there are still so many unanswered questions that even you OSers trip over yourselves to try to guess at explaining away.

Like what? Like Rewey's claim that how can there be growing grass in the Shanksville crater.... when he has yet to prove that it IS growing yet, and can't even get the dimensions of the hole correct?

Sorry, but random questions that troofers ask AFTER the study is finished need to bring their own facts and evidence to convince anyone that they even need to be addresed.

What troofers expect, is that all the various studies should have anticipated what some insane and delusional terrorist apologists will nit pick at when they're done. What they expect is that they should have clairvoyance about these issues. That's insane, but so are truthers.

You go ahead and believe people are delusional.

I don't believe troofers are delusional. I know it.

Self-delusion is the fundamental reason why 9/11 Twoofers have no ability to reason. You would think after 8 years of we skeptics and rational people explaining to Twoofers that the burden of proof remains entirely on their shoulders to refute the massive evidence that informs us that they would get off their butts and and bring evidence to the table.

But they simply refuse to.

Twoofers make claims that they are unable to defend. They whine that they have special rights to ask questions but not to answer any. In fact, they consider answering questions about their own claims an outrageous affront. And they will never listen to answers that are inconvenient to their conclusion that "9/11 was an inside job."

So, how in God's name do they think they can possibly ever convince anyone of the necessity of, and any reason for, yet another investigation? The NYCCAN failure is a classic example of the delusional nature of Twoofers' irrational thinking. They can't even understand the law to correctly do a petition, much less understand that the specifics of the petition don't even conform to the law. They live in a fairy-tale world impervious to reality and reason.

I find it truly remarkable that there are still Twoofers here who delude themselves for so long. It's truly a sad commentary that they are so incredibly blinded by their own ignorance.

Their 9/11 Denial Movement is collapsing all around them, dying out as a sick period in American history, but there are still those who are determined to go down with their sinking ship while pretending they're afloat steaming full speed ahead with new passengers coming aboard daily. Amazing, isn't it?

Fortunately, we're here to show others the inanity of the 9/11 Denial Movement and help prevent others from falling into the black hole of 9/11 Denial.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 04:42 PM by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale

You seem to think you can make things up even when people can simply scroll up and see that you are completely full of crap.

I wouldn't be saying that if I was you. They'll scroll up, and assuming that they're rational, they'll clearly see that I was using Rewey as an example to the kind of question that twoofs feel need to be answered, NOT that YOU agreed with what he was asking was relevant. They'll see that you lied, twoof.

As long as that works for you though.....

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 04:59 PM by bsbray11

Look -- they're both imitating two-year-olds again.

"Twoofers" ...

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:17 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
They'll see that you lied, twoof.

As long as that works for you though.....

You are truly a genius. They will read that you brought it up and read why. You clearly stated "Like what......" after I said there were still many unanswered questions.

I said there were questions. You said "Like what" and then offered up one to shoot down yourself.

If you were so ashamed of what you said that you think lying about it will make things better, you should have just edited your post while there was still time so that you would not look stupid.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:19 PM by Lillydale

reply to post by jthomas

Calling people names makes them so eager to read what you write and learn from you. You have already run crying from me on two different threads because I asked you to back up your claims. Find those passengers still strapped into seats that no one else ever saw yet?

Keep using the word "twoofers." It demonstrates the level of intellect being dealt with quite nicely. If only you had something to back up any of the stuff you spew.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:30 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by Lillydale

No one is in confusion about Joey's posting style. He made a grand spectacle of himself in a "debate" with Valhall not too long ago, showed his true colors on the forum. Most of his arguments fall into a category of fallacy anyway (straw man as seen earlier on this thread, ad hominem, etc.), but when he is cornered on something and knows it, he will simply refuse to say anything about it post after post after post, which is exactly what he did in the discussion with Valhall. There is absolutely no gaining any ground with him even when he is wrong, because both he and jthomas are just trolling.

I always like to point out that jthomas put me on ignore for repeatedly asking him to verify his claims with sources (ie evidence). Anyone who dogs him with the same request will find themselves on his ignore list as well, while he keeps posting about how he has all the evidence and "twoofers" have none.

All you have to do is just ask for sources proving how the towers collapsed, etc., and he seriously cannot respond to you. Just don't feed him anything he can rant about, because he will rant about whatever in a heartbeat.

Originally posted by Lillydale
You have already run crying from me on two different threads because I asked you to back up your claims.

Just keep at it. He's a windbag. He says there is so much evidence, but that's why he's a windbag, because he can't put up and he won't shut up. All you have to ask is, "Where in the NIST report do they prove the collapse mechanism?", simple questions like that. That's the question I kept asking before he eventually put me on ignore. That's a troll.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:36 PM by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale

You are truly a genius. They will read that you brought it up and read why. You clearly stated "Like what......" after I said there were still many unanswered questions.

I said there were questions. You said "Like what" and then offered up one to shoot down yourself.

Well, lime I said... the rational will recognize what I was saying.

You just excluded yourself from that group.

Congratulations.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:38 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Sorry, but rational people can actually discern a straw man from the actual opinion of the person they are talking to.

Straw man is a logical fallacy, you know. Last time I checked, rational people don't use logical fallacies, either. Kind of by definition.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 06:44 AM by Anti-Evil

Dont swet it ... the voters are all on the same page now..
and since we have MetroPCS... we can reach everyone in America
in less than a day through cell phones .... if you contact just 6 people
and they do the same less than 24 hours later -- we all have the same information... but sheesh dont tell the govt. they will have to shut down
their blackberries and we wont know what they are up too... ok... so sheeh.. loose lips sink Americans and we have lost enough already - time to win...

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 06:52 AM by Lillydale

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Well, lime I said... the rational will recognize what I was saying.

You just excluded yourself from that group.

Congratulations.

Delude yourself all you like. I am very sorry that I read things as you wrote them and then quoted them back as they were written. I guess it was wrong of me to keep your words in context and see them the way you presented them. I will try in the future to remember that you have no idea what you are saying and that you do not mean things the way you wrote them. In other words, I know I can just ignore you because you have nothing but gibberish.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 09:29 AM by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale

Interesting since there are still so many unanswered questions that even you OSers trip over yourselves to try to guess at explaining away.

Like what? Like Rewey's claim that how can there be growing grass in the Shanksville crater.... when he has yet to prove that it IS growing yet, and can't even get the dimensions of the hole correct?

Sorry, but random questions that troofers ask AFTER the study is finished need to bring their own facts and evidence to convince anyone that they even need to be addresed.

What troofers expect, is that all the various studies should have anticipated what some insane and delusional terrorist apologists will nit pick at when they're done. What they expect is that they should have clairvoyance about these issues. That's insane, but so are truthers.

Here's the entire quote for context.

The rational WILL realize that I am comparing Rewey's and any other troofer's question as to their relevancy and why they need to be addressed in the first place.

Lilly is just avoiding that basic question - why would anyone bother to answer their questions, when they can't make a decent case with evidence.

Address that....

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 12:48 PM by Lillydale

reply to post by Joey Canoli

You know damn well that you answered my statement about questions by saying "like what, Reweys....." It is there for all to see. If you did not mean for it to be directed at me, then it should not be a direct response to me. I know you cannot admit when you are wrong and you act like a stubborn child who thinks no one is watching. Now you are going to claim I am avoiding some question you have never asked me??? How could I avoid it when you never asked. Now that you have, can you ask a little more clearly?

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 01:51 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas

Calling people names makes them so eager to read what you write and learn from you.

Glad you're reading, Lillydale

You have already run crying from me on two different threads because I asked you to back up your claims.

LOL. It was just the opposite as you well know. We're STILL waiting for your evidence. You're desperate because you know the burden of proof is on your shoulders to refute the evidence.

Find those passengers still strapped into seats that no one else ever saw yet?

You know I never claimed that. It's instructive that you have to lie.

Keep using the word "twoofers." It demonstrates the level of intellect being dealt with quite nicely.

As you've just illustrated once again, one can never underestimate the intelligence of you 9/11 Twoofers.

If only you had something to back up any of the stuff you spew.

Too bad that the burden of proof is still on your shoulders to support your claims, isn't it? Now, just when are you going to refute the massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, Lillydale? Where are your interviews with any of the over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed, and sorted through the wreckage from inside the Pentagon?

You must be afraid to tell us what they handled and removed, just like every other no-planer is, eh?

You 9/11 Deniers just don't get it. You go around making ridiculous claims like you HAVE to have videos of AA77 crashing into the Pentagon in order to KNOW that it did. To hell with all of the other evidence, you say. It's just as bad with the WTC Towers with Twoofers claiming the 13+ seconds that it took WTC 1, 2, and 7 to collapse is "free fall speed." How many years does it take you Twoofers to learn how to count properly?

And then you've got the physics and engineering-challenged Twoofers who can't understand why it's possible to determine the collapse-mechanism of WTC 1 and 2 WITHOUT having to model the collapse after collapse initiation.

So, once again, I will repeat: the burden of proof remains on your shoulders to refute the massive evidence with evidence for your claims. YOU have to convince the world if you intend to get anywhere - no one has to convince you of anything.

So, get to work, Lillydale, and support you claims or admit that you are unable to do so and publicly withdraw your claims right here.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 03:09 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
We're STILL waiting for your evidence.

Ironic, isn't it?

What a hypocrite, all he does is sit there in his chair and demand everybody give him inarguable proof of what they say while he has never once been able to do the same, ignores all request to provide proof for his claims, etc.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 04:16 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas

Calling people names makes them so eager to read what you write and learn from you.

Glad you're reading, Lillydale

You have already run crying from me on two different threads because I asked you to back up your claims.

LOL. It was just the opposite as you well know. We're STILL waiting for your evidence. You're desperate because you know the burden of proof is on your shoulders to refute the evidence.

Since anyone can check and see that I am still actively posting in every single thread I have ever encountered you on and you are no longer on ANY OF THEM, your lies are just too blatant now. I would at least respect you if you tried to be a good liar but this crap is just plain delusional.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 04:37 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas

Calling people names makes them so eager to read what you write and learn from you.

Glad you're reading, Lillydale

You have already run crying from me on two different threads because I asked you to back up your claims.

LOL. It was just the opposite as you well know. We're STILL waiting for your evidence. You're desperate because you know the burden of proof is on your shoulders to refute the evidence.

Since anyone can check and see that I am still actively posting in every single thread I have ever encountered you on and you are no longer on ANY OF THEM, your lies are just too blatant now.

Now that was incredibly dumb of you, Lillydale. Anyone checking the threads in which you and I participated will immediately see that you could not support your claims nor answer one single one of my questions about your claims, despite the fact that I repeatedly asked you to fulfiull your obligation to support your claims, and called you on your many evasions and attempted shifting of the burden of proof.

What do you expect me to do, ask them repeatedly so you can refuse to answer them again and have you continue to demonstrate your irrationality and inability to support your claims?

I would at least respect you if you tried to be a good liar but this crap is just plain delusional.

let's be clear: you have absolutely no respect for anyone by attempting to evade your responsibility to support your own claims. You are insulting everyone's intelligence.

You are very good at illustrating my case for me every time, Lillydale. Now, are you going to stop the ridiculous evasions and support your own claims or continue to run away with your tail between your legs.

Now, refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon or admit to the American people that you cannot do so. Which is it going to be, Lillydale?

Remember, the burden of proof is on YOU to convince the American people that there is any need for yet another investigation. Right now you 9/11 Twoofers have eight full years of an epic fail.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by jthomas]

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 04:37 PM by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale
Now that you have, can you ask a little more clearly?

Sure.

Why do you think that anyone should answer the TM's questions, when no one can make a decent case with evidence that lends it credibility?

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 05:35 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Hell, why should we have even investigated anything that happened on 9/11 in the first place? The media told us everything relevant about it at the same time it was happening.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:26 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale
Now that you have, can you ask a little more clearly?

Sure.

Why do you think that anyone should answer the TM's questions, when no one can make a decent case with evidence that lends it credibility?

Well...why should I just believe the OS when they cannot make a decent case with evidence to lend it credibility? You keep forgetting that I did not start this. No one in the "truth movement" started this. This all began with the government officials that told us 19 hijackers flew planes into buildings. It starts with the people that sent my brothers and sisters off to die in Iraq because they said we were in danger. Where is their evidence?!?!?! Why the $^#& should I just believe it???? Why do you believe it???????????